SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL HYDERABAD

(Constituent of Symbiosis International University, Pune)

Subject: Comparative Criminal Procedure

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ARREST PROCEDURE IN INDIA AND

USA.

Submitted by:

Abhikhya Naragani – 18010324006 (Division C)

Sashank Varma – 18010324103 (Division D)
Tejal Tapaswani – 18010324151 (Division D)

Semester IX
Batch 2018-23

In
September, 2022
Under the guidance of
Hifajatali Sayyed
Assistant Professor
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.
 INDEX

CHAPTER I..................................................................................................................................3

1.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................3
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................4
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.....................................................................................................4
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................4
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................5

CHAPTER II.................................................................................................................................7

2.1 RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSONS......................................................................................7

INDIA..............................................................................................................................7
U.S.A................................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER III..............................................................................................................................10

3.1 PROCEDURE OF ARREST.................................................................................................10

INDIA............................................................................................................................10
U.S.A..............................................................................................................................12
3.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS...............................................................................................14

CHAPTER IV.............................................................................................................................15

4.1 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................15

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................16

2
 CHAPTER I

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Right to fair trial is an essential feature of a justice delivery system. Without a fair trial,
accused and innocent persons would be punished and it would defeat the sole purpose of
having a justice delivery system. Due to the gradual development in the field of criminal law,
it has now been universally agreed and accepted on a humanitarian ground that an individual
accused of committing a crime cannot be punished without being given an opportunity to be
heard before the court declares its verdict. Correspondingly, on an international platform, the
right to fair trial is also identified as a basic human right.

Each individual is born with some basic rights, with right to life being the most common
right. Likewise, each citizen is bestowed with rights, in the spirit of fraternity and integrity
that are absolutely fair and without discrimination. However, an individuals' rights might be
abandoned if he or she is imprisoned or arrested for committing a crime. Although an arrested
individual has certain rights, which are discussed further below. India and America have
adopted this rule of law, i.e., “innocent until proven guilty” and it is protected by their
Constitution. The rights of an accused should be equally respected and protected in a
democratic country, though he is convicted of a criminal offence. The rights of an arrested
include the rights of the accused at the time of arrest, search and confiscation, during the trial
process and the like.

The term “Arrest” in legal sense is the apprehension of an individual by authorised personnel
so as to deprive one of their liberty. In criminal law sense, arrest is used as a mechanism for
bringing an accused before the court of law and to further prohibit him from escaping the
country. The meaning of arrest can be understood as the seizure or forcible restraint of an
individual who is suspected to have committed an offence and the person is kept in custody
of legal authorities for the crime committed. In furtherance to this, a comparative analysis
with reference to similar laws with respect to rights of arrest persons and the arrest procedure
in India and the United States shall be discussed. Thus, through this paper, the laws and
provisions relating to arrest procedure in India and USA is discussed with relevant case laws.

3
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

With respect to the current study, the researcher shall deal with the following research
objectives;

1. To understand the importance of conducting fair trial.

2. To study the rights available to arrest persons in India and USA.
3. To analyse the laws based on arrest procedure in India and USA.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In light of the afore-mentioned research objectives, the researcher shall deal with the
following research questions;

1. How similar are the rights of arrested persons in India and USA?
2. What is the procedural distinction between India and USA with respect to arrest?
3. To what extent are these ideologies of nature justice being implemented/achieved?

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research paper mainly employs doctrinal research method as it provides importance to
research which was primarily conducted by other authors, paving the way for other
researchers. Doctrinal research method is found to be the most suitable for the current study
as it involves analysis of various aspects relating to the topic. Sources of data are mainly
divided into primary source of date and secondary source of data. With respect to the current
study, the researcher has employed both types. Primary data includes, The Indian
Constitution and The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) along with the judgments
passed by High Courts and Supreme Courts, various legislations and judicial decisions. It
also includes The United States Constitution- Bill of Rights and landmark judgements of the
like. The researcher has also used secondary source of data such as articles, reports and
materials available online and has also referred to legal databases such as Jstor and SCC
Online. Lastly, the researcher has followed the bluebook twentieth edition method for citing
footnotes and other references used during the period of research.

4
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW

The following literature review has been referred to for the present study:

1. “The Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination and Fear of Foreign

Prosecution”1
The authors in this article have highlighted the development of the right against self-
incrimination and how such a privilege was first created in England and thereafter adopted by
the US constitution. It also mentions the evolution of the fifth amendment with several case
laws. However, the context pertaining to foreign prosecution was not of much relevancy to
the current study.

2. “Study on the Rights of Arrested and Accused Person in India”2

The authors have discussed standards of the criminal law based on the principle “thousand
accused can be punished but innocent should not be punished”. It showcases the basic
ideologies of our legal framework primarily presuming virtue of the accused till he is proven
guilty. It also highlights how accused in India have certain rights and the very fundamental
one’s are found in the Constitution of India.

3. “What are the Rights of an Arrested Person?”3

The authors have given a detailed description on arrested persons in India. They emphasized
on the Rights available with a person who has been arrested. It discusses various rights for
instance, Right to Silence, Right to be taken before a Magistrate, Right to know the grounds
of Arrest and Rights at Trial.

4. “The Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Proceedings as a Human Right”4

1
Rotsztain, Diego A. “The Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination and Fear of Foreign
Prosecution.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 96, no. 7, 1940–72 (1996) JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1123297.
Accessed 14 Sep. 2022.
2
Manish K. Aggarwal, Pradeep K. Goyal “Study on the Rights of Arrested and Accused Person in India”
Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education, vol. 15, (2018).
3
Dr. Kalpna Sharma, “What Are the Rights of an Arrested Person?” http://lc2.du.ac.in/DATA/Rights%20of
%20Arrested%20person%20(Dr.%20Kalpna%20Sharma).pdf Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.

5
The above paper gives a comparative study on the laws existing in different countries with
respect to the right to fair trial. In addition, the paper discusses right to fair trial as a human
right and how this right is recognised universally.

5. “The Right to Silence: Using American and European Law to Protect a Fundamental
Right.”5
The afore-mentioned paper focuses on the due process followed while arresting an individual
and the brief history of the right to remain silent in the USA. It also mentions the dimensions
and theoretical basis of the right to silence while emphasising on the famous ‘Miranda
Rights’. However, the context was more inclined towards the Australian jurisdiction than the
American jurisdiction.

6. “A Brief Overview on Arrest, Procedure of Arrest and Rights of Arrested Person”6

The author in this article have emphasized on the procedural aspects of arrest and the rights
available with an arrested person. It discusses how arrest is made in accordance to the
Cr.P.C., which consists of two methods – arrest with warrant and arrest without warrant. It
also highlights various guidelines of arrest and case laws signifying the rights of an arrested
person.

7. “The Effects of Miranda v. Arizona: “Embedded” in Our National Culture?”7

The authors in this paper have discussed the case of Miranda v. Arizona showcasing a
fundamental ideology in American culture and commandment, and how Miranda in the
present day seeks to safeguard the “free choice” of a detained person to decide whether to
answer during investigation.

4
Harris, David. “The Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Proceedings as a Human Right.” The International and
Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, 352–78 (1967) JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/757381.
Accessed 14 Sep. 2022.
5
Gray, Anthony, “The Right to Silence: Using American and European Law to Protect a Fundamental Right.”
New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 16, 527–567 (2013). Accessed
14 Sep. 2022.
6
Satabdi Gupta, “A Brief Overview on Arrest, Procedure of Arrest and Right of the Arrested Person”, vol 4
ijlmh. 531. 533-534 (2021) Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.
7
Thomas, George C., and Richard A. Leo. “The Effects of Miranda v. Arizona: ‘Embedded’ in Our National
Culture?” Crime and Justice, vol. 29, 203–71 (2002) JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147709. Accessed 15
Sep. 2022.

6
 CHAPTER II

2.1 RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSONS

INDIA

Every individual under the Indian Constitution is guaranteed the right against self-
incrimination under Article 20(3). The principle of right to silence was well-recognized in the
case of “Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani”8, it was observed that nobody by force can extort
information from the arrested person, who has the constitutional privileged to remain silent
during the time of questioning. Subsequently, the Apex Court held that narco-analysis, brain
mapping and test for lie detector violative of Article 20(3). 9 It was noted that these tests
resulted in forceful infringement into one’s mind, thus nullifying the legality and authenticity
of the right to keep silent. The Court in “State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad”10, held that
the privileged against self-incrimination is well-established under Article 20(3), it is
providing information centered around personal comprehension or understanding of the
person giving such details and is not the procedure of constructing material evidence.

The Constitution via Article 14 along with Cr.P.C guarantees the right to equality before the
law. These clauses are intended to ensure that the persons who are convicted are not illegally
obtained. Even though the right to speedy trial is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the
Court in the matter of “Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar” 11
stated that a trial is to be conducted as quickly as attainable. In matters where the punishment
awarded is 2 years of imprisonment, subsequent to the arrest of the individual, the enquiry
for the trial should be concluded in 6 months or discontinued on the instructions of the
Magistrate; as long as he accepts and agrees in written measures that the investigation should
be prolonged. In “D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal”,12the Court ordered that until legal
provisions for preventive measures were developed, all arrests and detentions procedures
must adhere to the rules. It was stated that regardless of the stage of the case at the time the
incident occurred, any kind of torture or dehumanising behaviour would be prohibited.
Further, the need to protect individuals’ fundamental and human rights in light of police
8
Nandini Sathpathy v.P.L. Dani,1978 SCR (3) 608.
9
Gobind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh., AIR 1975 SC 1378; Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981
SC 265; Selvi v. State of Karnataka,AIR 2010 SC 1974; K. Damayanti v. State of Orissa, 004 Cri. LJ 4003.
10
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
11
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 SCR (3) 532.
12
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.

7
brutality was discussed, where it was determined that a steady perspective was necessary to
uphold the objectives of justice.

The Court in “Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P”.13 outlined the guidelines in matters of
arrest exclusively. In view of the rising crime rate, the court attempted to strike a balance
between the rights available with a person and rights available with an individual who has
been detained illegally. In the case of “Khatri and Others v. State of Bihar”14 the state and its
police officials have been strongly admonished by the Supreme Court as they failed to bring
the arrested person before a Judicial Magistrate in 24 hours of the arrest, which is a legally
mandated. It the magistrates’ duty to ensure that this requirement is fulfilled otherwise, the
police officer will be held guilty. In “Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh” 15,
it was observed upon failing to notify the detained individual of his right to consult an
advocate, it would lead to setting aside of the conviction. The arrested persons has the
fundamental right to meet with his lawyer from the moment he is arrested.

U.S.A.

Arrest as a process involves curtailing the liberty of a person and hence if left without any
laws to govern the procedure would result in utmost violation of human rights. Considering
this, every country formulated their own laws to honour the rights of the arrested people.
Similarly, in USA, there is a distinction drawn between detention and arrest and both have
laws governing their procedure. The common procedure follows that the defendant will have
to have his picture taken upon arrest and will be admitted to the pre-trial prison. The rights of
the arrested people are enumerated in the “Fifth Amendment” (right against self-
incrimination); “Sixth Amendment” (right to legal representation). Though these rights are
not unheard of, USA was put on the pedestal for the Miranda Rights given to arrested people
which is also popularly known as Miranda Warning. The Miranda rights encapsulate
elements from the aforementioned amendments and have become a significant part of the
arrest procedure and cannot be ignored. These rights were derived in the landmark case
before the USA Supreme Court in 1996 in the matter of “Miranda v. Arizona”16. In the
instant case, Ernesto Miranda was arrested on the counts of kidnapping and rape and was
13
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P, AIR 1994 SC 1349.
14
Khatri and Others v. State of Bihar ,1981 SCC (1) 627.
15
Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1986 SCR (1) 590.
16
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

8
interrogated for 2 hours when he was in custody of police after which he confessed to his
crimes in writing. The defense took the plea that Miranda was not informed of his rights to
legal representation or his right to remain silent and hence appealed against the same. The
apex court reversed the ruling and laid down guidelines on how the arrested people should be
treated and made aware of their constitutional rights. The court enumerated the following
guidelines and the rights that have to be communicated to the accused at the time of arrest.
This came to be known as the Miranda Warning.

The Miranda warning consisted of the following rights:

1. The right to remain silent.
2. To inform the accused that anything said by him/her can be and will be used against
the accused before the court.
3. The right to legal representation/counsel.
4. To inform the accused that if he is financially unable to find an attorney, one will be
provided for his representation.

In the case of “Berkemer v. McCarty”17, the apex court observed that the Miranda rights have
to be read to every person in custody irrelevant of the vigorous nature of the crime committed
as every accused has the right to receive the procedural protections during arrest. Miranda
rights do not have to be interpreted in a particular way, and it does not have to specifically be
similar to the verbatim of the Miranda case provided that they are effectively and completely
communicated.18 Further, the 5th amendment in the Bill of Rights provides procedural
safeguards which include the prohibition on double jeopardy, prohibition on compelling one
to be a witness against himself. The 6 th amendment enumerates the right of the accused to a
speedy and fair trial with information furnished to the accused about the nature and cause of
the accusation, etc. The 5th amendment and Miranda rights have been popularised by several
TV Shows and movies and are well known to almost every adult today.

17
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
18
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).

9
 CHAPTER III
3.1 PROCEDURE OF ARREST

INDIA

The procedure of Arrest provided mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
comprises of two methods through which arrest is made.
1. Arrest with no warrant but in compliance with the legal provisions, which are
permitting such an arrest.
2. Arrest with warrant issued by the magistrate.

Arrest without Warrant

According to Section 4119, 4220 and 16121 of the Cr.P.C., the police officers are sanctioned to
arrest a person without a warrant. .
i. Section 41(1) mentions that any police officer can detain a person devoid of a warrant
if he finds out that the person has committed any cognizable offence, or such an
individual is in ownership of any stolen article, or he has been proclaimed as an
offender by the state, or such an individual has hindered a police officer during his
duty, or who tries to break out from lawful detention, etc.
ii. According to Section 42, a police officer is permitted to detain someone without a
warrant, even if they have committed a non-cognizable crime, if they refuse to give
their name or address to the officer or if they do and the officer has good reason to
believe that the information they were given was incorrect.
iii. The police officer has the power to arrest without a warrant according to Section 161
of the Cr.P.C. A warrant, under the assumption that the subject would engage in
criminal activity. However, there are other prerequisites that must be met, such as the
predicted offence being a cognizable offence and second, the police officer must
believe that the offence can only be stopped only by detaining the suspect. 

Arrests made by private individuals also count as warrantless arrests. As per Section 43
of Cr.P.C, any independent person has the right to detain or arrange for the detention of
anyone in his presence has committed any offence that is punishable by a fine, jail time, or
both, or is a declared offender. The next step is take that person right away to the closest
police station subsequently, if the officer has a good faith belief that he committed any such
19
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 41, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
20
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 42, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
21
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 161, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

10
offence that comes with, and then he may re-arrest him in accordance with Sections 41 and
42 of the Cr.P.C.22

Arrest with Warrant

A judge, magistrate, or court of law issues an arrest warrant to the authorities so they can
detain a suspect in a criminal case. Once the decision has been made, the police will carry out
the directive and will have the legal right to detain the suspect wherever they may be located.
The following are the primary requirements of warrant of arrest –
1. The Warrant must be in writing;
2. It should be sealed.
3. It should state the offence committed
4. It should be signed by the presiding officer
5. It should be in prescribed form;

Arrest warrant given by a court under this statute is supposed to be in written format, marked
by the court's officiating officer, and contain the court's seal, specified under Section 70 of
the Code.23 No other court has the authority to revoke the warrant except the court that issued
it, as stated in Section 70(2)24, which states that all such warrant must stay in operation till the
time it is revoked by the Court that issued it or till the time it is implemented. Additionally,
the warrant must be issued for any crime committed by anyone, specifically for the protection
of the person in front of the relevant court & not before the police officer, as well as for
adhering to the general procedure of law provided.

When a subsidiary officer is assigned by a senior officer to arrest pursuant to Section 55 of

the Cr.P.C. the subsidiary officer is obligated to inform the subject-matter of the arrest of the
essence of the written order from the senior officer outlining the crime or other reason to
arrest before the arrest. If this clause is not followed, the arrest will be invalid. 25In case of a
warranted arrest, the arrest would be illegal if the warrant's specifics are not disclosed. This
right now enjoys the position of an essential right given in the Indian Constitution.26

22
Id At 4.
23
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 70, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
24
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 70(2), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
25
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 50(1), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
26
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 75, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

11
In “Madhu Limaye v. The State Of Maharashtra” 27, Madhu Limaye, A Lok Sabha member
was detained along with several other people. Madhu Limaye petitioned stating that he and
his companions were taken into custody but that no one had informed him of the reason(s) or
grounds for their imprisonment. One of the allegations made by Madhu Limaye was that
Article 22(1) of the Constitution's required provisions had been broken. The Apex Court said
that Article 22(1) contains a clause that is important and vital for protecting personal
freedom. The court further noted that the two clauses of Article 22's paragraph one are
designed to provide the arrested person the initial to exercise the second right—to speak with
a legal representative of the arresting authority—the defendant has the chance to clear up any
misunderstanding, mistake, or misperception on the part of the arresting authority and to be
fully informed of the charges brought against him.

U.S.A.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution only permits an arrest provided the
authorities have solid evidence that both the suspect and the offence in question were
committed. This need for probable cause limits the ability of the police to revoke someone's
freedom. It stops the kind of haphazard collecting of “undesirables” that occasionally takes
place in other nations. Where the Fourth Amendment leaves off, legislatures and courts have
continued to construct laws governing how, when, and why someone can be arrested.28

In the United States, there is a differentiation between an arrest and the concept of detention.
The disparity is to understand whether the act of taking a person into custody is “cursory and
brief” in essence, and whether or not a rational person would feel free to go away. After
being detained in a pre-trial facility after being arrested for a major offence, the defendant
will have their picture taken. The universal law of arrest is distinguished by United States law
in numerous areas. A police officer can carry out an arrest in absence of a warrant if the
officer has a reason to think that a crime has been committed. An officer can apply force that
is rational and required to conquer resistance when affecting a lawful arrest. When it is not
necessary given the circumstances, an officer is not allowed to use excessive force.29
Any member of the legal system, including a police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, or state
trooper, has the authority to make an arrest. Depending on the situation, either a warrant or no
27
Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra, 1978 SCR (1) 749.
28
Paul Bergman, J.D., & Sara J. Berman, J.D., The Criminal Handbook (2022).
29
Levy Leonard W, “The Right Against Self-Incrimination: History and Judicial History.” Political Science
Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 1–29 (1969). Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.

12
warrant may be used to make the arrest. A judge's order explaining the suspect to be arrested
and the accusation(s) against them is known as a warrant. It orders all law enforcement agents
to detain the subject of the complaint. A warrant must be in place before a police officer can
arrest you, except one of the subsequent situations occurs:
 The law enforcement official has reason to think that you have an active arrest
warrant in this state or another.
 In the officer's presence, a crime was committed or attempted to be committed.30
Under some conditions, a private citizen has the authority to make an arrest. When a civilian
has reason to suppose that a crime apart from a violation of order is being committed, they
are legally allowed to hold or arrest the suspected offender. However, the law prohibits
citizens from detaining or arresting a different person on the basis of a mere notion that a
crime is being committed; the citizen should have direct understanding of the occurrence of
the offence. To make an arrest, all that must be done is to stop the suspect from leaving the
area.31

3.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

30
Id At 3.
31
Id At 1.

13
 S.NO BASIS OF INDIA U.S.A.
. DISTINCTION

1. Right to know grounds Available under Sections Commonly known as

of arrest 50, 50A, 55, 75 of the Miranda Rights. The
Code of Criminal police officer shall advise
Procedure and Article the arrested persons
22(1) of the Constitution. rights.

2. Right to remain silent/ Constitutional right to Constitutional right to

self – incrimination remain silent under remain silent under 5th
Article 20(3). Amendment – Bills of
Rights of the United
States Constitution.

3. Right to fair and Right for equal treatment Accused has the right to
speedy trial and right to speedy trial is a fair and speedy trial, by
granted under Article 14. an unbiased panel of
judges under 6th
Amendment – Bills of
Rights of the United
States Constitution.

5. Procedure Classified into two No classification,

categories – arrest with however, if a police
warrant and arrest without officer has probable
warrant. cause to believe an
individual has committed
and offence, he can
arrest. He can make an
unauthorised arrest.

CHAPTER IV
4.1 CONCLUSION

14
The right to fair trial is a standardised human right and countries are obligated to follow the
same. However, the procedure establish by law varies from country to country. Thus, the
development of fair trial differs from each country but the principles of natural justice which
forms a part of fair trial are mostly the same across the globe. It is not only recognized and
established in the Indian system of administration but also is a fundamental right in the
backdrop of the International Covenants, such as “The European Convention on Human
Rights”, “The American Convention on Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights” and “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) and various other
international platforms.

India endures a massive issue of custodial deaths as well as illegal arrests, which are
primarily occurring due to illegal arrests. These problems destabilize the fundamental nature
of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in addition to the essential human rights that are
present with everyone as per the UDHR. The specifications issued in “D.K. Basu v. West
Bengal” by the Apex Court are not being implemented accurately and thus, it is a pressing
priority to attempt and implement the issued prerequisites, proviso and rules properly, which
can absolutely endure enhanced outcomes, eventually assisting in the drop off of unlawful
arrests and consequential custodial deaths. The United States showcases a difference between
an arrest and detention. It identifies the common law arrest available under several
jurisdictions. If a police officer has credible cause to consider that an offence has been
committed, the officer has the power to make an arrest regardless of an arrest warrant. It is
important to mention “Miranda v. Arizona” as it emphasized on the rights of an arrested
person under Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights during questioning in the court. And a
Miranda warning is issued only when an individual is under custody and is being questioned,
and the outcomes of this interrogation are to be made use of in Court.

To conclude, law is always evolving based on the shifts in society, ethics, science and so on.
Justice, equity and fairness are the core principles of the criminal justice system. The legal
fraternity ought to be able to adapt to these advancements as long as they are not in
contravention with the fundamental rights or legal principles, and are implemented for the
betterment of the society.

REFERENCES

Cases:
15
 1. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
2. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.
4. Gobind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh., AIR 1975 SC 1378.
5. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 SCR (3) 532.
6. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P, AIR 1994 SC 1349.
7. K. Damayanti v. State of Orissa, 004 Cri. LJ 4003.
8. Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar, 1981 SCC (1) 627.
9. Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 265.
10. Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra, 1978 SCR (1) 749.
11. Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
12. Nandini Sathpathy vs P.L.Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025.
13. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974.
14. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
15. Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal PradesH, 1986 SCR (1) 590.

Journal Articles:

1. Dr. Kalpna Sharma, “What Are the Rights of an Arrested Person?”

http://lc2.du.ac.in/DATA/Rights%20of%20Arrested%20person%20(Dr.%20Kalpna
%20Sharma).pdf Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.
2. Gray, Anthony, “The Right to Silence: Using American and European Law to Protect
a Fundamental Right.” New Criminal Law Review: An International and
Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 16, 527–567 (2013). Accessed 14 Sep. 2022.
3. Harris, David. “The Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Proceedings as a Human
Right.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, 352–78
(1967) JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/757381. Accessed 14 Sep. 2022.

4. Levy Leonard W, “The Right Against Self-Incrimination: History and Judicial

History.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 1–29 (1969). Accessed 15
Sep. 2022.

16
 5. Manish K. Aggarwal, Pradeep K. Goyal “Study on the Rights of Arrested and
Accused Person in India” Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied
Education, vol. 15, (2018).
6. Powell, Lewis F. “The Right to a Fair Trial.” American Bar Association Journal, vol.
51, no. 6, 534–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25723242. Accessed 14 Sep.
2022.
7. Rotsztain, Diego A. “The Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination and
Fear of Foreign Prosecution.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 96, no. 7, 1940–72 (1996)
JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1123297. Accessed 14 Sep. 2022.
8. Satabdi Gupta, “A Brief Overview on Arrest, Procedure of Arrest and Right of the
Arrested Person”, vol 4 IJLMH, 533-534 (2021) Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.

9. South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, “Narcoanalysis: A Dangerous

Mirage.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 42, no. 27/28, pp. 2857–2859 (2007).
Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.
10. Thomas, George C., and Richard A. Leo. “The Effects of Miranda v. Arizona:
‘Embedded’ in Our National Culture?” Crime and Justice, vol. 29, 203–71 (2002)
JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147709. Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.

Statutes:

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The Constitution of India.
3. The Constitution of the United States. 

17